Case Law Details
Metadin Mali Vs C.S.T. Service Tax Ahmedabad (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
We have carefully gone through the relevant contract entered into by Appellant with M/s Pino Bisazza Glass Pvt. Ltd and find that M/s. Pino has entered into agreement with the appellant for packing and salvaging activities. The appellant was paid for carrying out such activities on per Kgs / Per Metric Ton basis. The workmen deployed by the appellant for carrying out such activities were under the supervision and control of the appellant. M/s Pino, who entrusted the job contract to the appellant was no way concerned with the workmen deployed by the appellant. It is also noticed that over and above paying the amount for activities undertaken by the appellant on job contract basis, the said service receiver had not paid any specific price to the workmen deployed by the appellant. Since there is no specific mention about deployment of labour/work force, the services provided by the appellant should not fall under the taxable category of manpower recruitment or supply agency service. Further, the rate contract provided in the work order clearly indicates that the amount shall be paid at a fixed basis i.e. on per kgs /per metric ton basis. Since there is no specific mention about payment of reimbursement of wages and salaries to the workman, the services provided shall not fall under such taxable category of service.
Thus, under the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the appellant had provided the Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service. Hence, we are of the considered view that the service tax demands confirmed on the appellant cannot be sustained.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
M/s. Matadin Mali has filed the present appeal being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal No. 104/2007(Ahd-III)CE/ID/Commr. dtd. 12.10.2007
Please become a member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
